> > Yes. Plus we'd like the perl interpreter to be in a standard place so > > that those perverts who write module-free scripts are able to do so. ;-) > > Also, in terms of the "perl contract", its nice to have perl in > > /usr/bin/perl. > > In terms of the "perl contract" that seems to me like a violation. see > below.
Please don't ignore the case of split-perl, where the libraries might be distributed separately, and can be separately installed on the OS. > > But the split model will break this assumption? > > IMHO, yes it does. Whenever I see a perl binary which says "I'm Perl > 5.X.X" I expect it to > know at least the core perl library of the relevant release. Split-perl would have a _separate_ library. perl -v would produce output indicating possible non-existance of the standard library. > >> Not sure how glob() works though. perl-borg would want to have > >> /usr/bin/perl > >> do glob() with File/Glob.so > > > > So perl-borg can include it? What am I missing? > > Borg is the "official" (or so) callsign for Jarkko. > perl-borg means the huge, assimilating, monstrous perl-5.8-to-be dist. > It's got it all. No - you miss my question. Why does perl-base need glob() when standard libraries can include it? > I think the greatest trouble is to imagine to have a totally stripped > down > /usr/bin/perl without DynaLoader. Nope - no-one is saying that (anymore?). Base-perl should have Dynaloader. M -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
